Over the last few days I have been privy to what I’ll describe as a “lively discussion” on a veterinary ethics mailing list. One vet on this list commented that she felt that more veterinarians should encourage pet owners to carry pet health insurance policies. She was frustrated by the number of animals she sees euthanized for financial reasons. Other veterinarians responded that health insurance policies are a waste of money: owners are likely to pay out much more over the course of the animal’s life than they will regain in payouts. After all, the insurance company has to make money.
There are several ways of looking at this issue. One is to argue that the question is not whether a pet health insurance policy saves an owner money, but whether it saves the animal’s life. Does it matter if the owner spends $2000 over ten years, so long as the necessary $1500 is available when the dog is hit by a car? Who is the veterinarian advocating for — the owner or the pet?
Of course, even if a pet insurance policy costs more than it returns, it may still have a benefit. Many people have trouble saving money for “just in case” scenarios, and a policy makes sure the money is available when it’s needed. And of course, even if you’re an excellent saver, your pet may have an unexpected health crisis before you’ve had time to save enough to cover it.
I feel that the real problem, though, is that so many people just don’t realize how much veterinary care can cost, particularly because their own health insurance shields them from the true cost of human medical care. Veterinarians can be hesitant to broach these issues with new owners; after all, discussing finances is always awkward, particularly when you tell someone that you might end up charging them a great deal of money some day. But I think veterinarians do owners a disservice to withhold this information. Far too many owners are deeply shocked by the cost of care when their animal has a broken leg, and are completely unprepared to find the money. I don’t know how many of them would have saved some money just in case if they had known, but they should at least have been given the chance.
As I said on the mailing list, I imagine a poster in a veterinary clinic:
Pet insurance: $20/month
One broken leg repair: $3000
Stomach bloat/twist surgery: $4000
Serious "hit by car" patient: $5000
Knowing you will always be able to afford your pet's emergency
medical care: priceless
The more I think about it, the more I realize how very little information is out there about the effectiveness of pet health insurance in saving animal lives. I propose a study. In two veterinary clinics, record the number of euthanasia decisions influenced by financial reasons for several months. (This would be difficult to do, but I think possible, if one could get owner cooperation.) Also record the number of insurance claims submitted through each clinic. (These claims usually require a veterinarian’s signature, so should be easy to track.) Then provide information, using handouts or posters, about pet health insurance in one of the clinics. Record the same data for several more months, and look for changes.
But even without evidence that providing information about costs and payment options is effective, I think it is part of a veterinarian’s job to educate owners about the responsibilities of pet ownership. Finding ways to afford health care is part of that. Provide owners with the information about costs, and let them make their own decisions about how to prepare for the worst.
Showing posts with label veterinary ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label veterinary ethics. Show all posts
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Friday, August 5, 2011
Land of eyeballs: ophthalmology rotation
I was really surprised at how interesting I found my ophthalmology rotation. Two weeks of eyeballs should have been mostly boring and creepy, right? But it turned out to be rife with my favorite kind of veterinary ethical issue: how we breed dogs.
Take the several bulldogs we saw who had so many facial wrinkles that their skin was folded over their eyes and rubbed against their eyeballs. (They also had yeast infections in the depths of their wrinkles, but that was a problem for a different department.) These dogs required surgical intervention to cut off the worst of the wrinkles. If they did not receive the surgery, they would be extremely uncomfortable (they all came in with red, squinty eyes), and would eventually get corneal ulcers which would proceed to infections and possible removal of the eye in question.
We also saw a raft of brachycephalic (flat-faced) dogs whose faces were so flattened that their eyes bulged out. Some of them could not completely close their eyelids. Their eyes were at risk for damage just due to being so out there in the world and unprotected. In the opinion of the ophthalmologists, pug owners all need to be given special eye care instructions when they acquire their new dog.
I asked the owner of one of the dogs that required surgery about where he had gotten the dog. He replied that the dog came from a breeder. I suggested that he get in touch with the breeder to let her know about the necessary surgery, so that she could use that information to help her choose wisely which dogs to breed in the future, and try to avoid producing more puppies with the problem. He replied in surprise, “I thought this was just a breed-related problem.”
Yes, these are breed-related problems. But breed-related isn’t synonymous with inevitable. It doesn’t mean we can’t try to avoid them as we create more dogs of that breed. Veterinarians can and should be more clear with their clients about this. They don’t have to be confrontational to do it! They don’t have to imply that the client made a mistake by purchasing the dog. They can instead look to the future: here’s what we can do to make the breed better.
Take the several bulldogs we saw who had so many facial wrinkles that their skin was folded over their eyes and rubbed against their eyeballs. (They also had yeast infections in the depths of their wrinkles, but that was a problem for a different department.) These dogs required surgical intervention to cut off the worst of the wrinkles. If they did not receive the surgery, they would be extremely uncomfortable (they all came in with red, squinty eyes), and would eventually get corneal ulcers which would proceed to infections and possible removal of the eye in question.
We also saw a raft of brachycephalic (flat-faced) dogs whose faces were so flattened that their eyes bulged out. Some of them could not completely close their eyelids. Their eyes were at risk for damage just due to being so out there in the world and unprotected. In the opinion of the ophthalmologists, pug owners all need to be given special eye care instructions when they acquire their new dog.
I asked the owner of one of the dogs that required surgery about where he had gotten the dog. He replied that the dog came from a breeder. I suggested that he get in touch with the breeder to let her know about the necessary surgery, so that she could use that information to help her choose wisely which dogs to breed in the future, and try to avoid producing more puppies with the problem. He replied in surprise, “I thought this was just a breed-related problem.”
Yes, these are breed-related problems. But breed-related isn’t synonymous with inevitable. It doesn’t mean we can’t try to avoid them as we create more dogs of that breed. Veterinarians can and should be more clear with their clients about this. They don’t have to be confrontational to do it! They don’t have to imply that the client made a mistake by purchasing the dog. They can instead look to the future: here’s what we can do to make the breed better.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Purebred Paradox, part four: What can be done?
(Continued from part three.)
Below are my musings on some of the talks at the recent conference, The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. Specifically, these talks delve deeper into ways some of the speakers thought we could move forward.
Professor Sir Patrick Bateson: “Problems of dog-breeding and what to do about them”
In his keynote address, Professor Bateson called for for “a public awareness and education campaign.” In his talk and in later discussions, the question of whom to educate was raised. Three interest groups were identified: dog owners, dog breeders, and judges of dog conformation competitions. Again and again, speakers at the conference returned with frustration to the question of how to educate dog owners. Once the bulldog has been purchased and the new puppy brought to the veterinarian for its wellness exam, it is too late. How do you educate people about healthy breeds before they bring home and bond with a new dog?
Patricia Haines, DVM: “Canine Genetics, Behavior and the role of the parent club”
Dr. Haines, a veterinarian and breeder of pointers, talked about parent breed clubs. Both the American Kennel Club (the AKC, the largest registering body of American purebred dogs) and the Kennel Club (the KC, the AKC’s British counterpart) are made up not of direct members but of member clubs, or “parent clubs.” These clubs mostly (but not entirely) represent breed specific clubs, such as the Golden Retriever Club of America.
Dr. Haines made the point that work for change would be more effective with the parent breed clubs, rather than with AKC judges. In fact, she said, many breeders joke that the judges don’t really know their breed well. It is the parent clubs which are the guardians of the breed standards, and, perhaps more importantly, the interpreters of them.
Dr. Haines’ insight highlighted, in my opinion, the usefulness of working with members of the dog breeding community. That community is a complex one which can be difficult to fully understand from the outside.
Gail K. Smith, VMD, PhD: “Efficacy of hip dysplasia screening: An animal welfare imperative”
Dr. Smith is the veterinary surgeon who designed the PennHip screening system for hip dysplasia. The more traditional Orthopedic Foundation for Animals screening system involves subjective judgement of a dog’s hips as poor, fair, good, or excellent. PennHip, on the other hand, provides an objectively determined “distraction index,” a numerical measurement of the amount of hip laxity (where more laxity implies worse disease). Dr. Smith explained that his PennHip system is particularly useful for genetic studies of hip dysplasia because it is a better measurement of phenotype, for use in correlation to genotype. In other words, if you want to study what genes produce hip dysplasia, an objective numerical value describing the individual animal’s anatomy is more useful than a subjective value like “fair.”
Of course, the question arises: can other characteristics be measured using numerical scales? How do you measure the flatness of a bulldog’s face? There is work to be done in this area.
Steve Zawistowski, PhD, CAAB: closing remarks
PhD behaviorist Dr. Sawistowski explicitly identified a fissure between those who breed dogs and those who identify themselves as members of animal welfare organizations. He said, “We are going to have to heal that fissure before we can heal the dogs that we all know and love.” This conference did a great job of outlining this goal and the current situation and identifying priorities to be addressed.
Below are my musings on some of the talks at the recent conference, The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. Specifically, these talks delve deeper into ways some of the speakers thought we could move forward.
Professor Sir Patrick Bateson: “Problems of dog-breeding and what to do about them”
In his keynote address, Professor Bateson called for for “a public awareness and education campaign.” In his talk and in later discussions, the question of whom to educate was raised. Three interest groups were identified: dog owners, dog breeders, and judges of dog conformation competitions. Again and again, speakers at the conference returned with frustration to the question of how to educate dog owners. Once the bulldog has been purchased and the new puppy brought to the veterinarian for its wellness exam, it is too late. How do you educate people about healthy breeds before they bring home and bond with a new dog?
Patricia Haines, DVM: “Canine Genetics, Behavior and the role of the parent club”
Dr. Haines, a veterinarian and breeder of pointers, talked about parent breed clubs. Both the American Kennel Club (the AKC, the largest registering body of American purebred dogs) and the Kennel Club (the KC, the AKC’s British counterpart) are made up not of direct members but of member clubs, or “parent clubs.” These clubs mostly (but not entirely) represent breed specific clubs, such as the Golden Retriever Club of America.
Dr. Haines made the point that work for change would be more effective with the parent breed clubs, rather than with AKC judges. In fact, she said, many breeders joke that the judges don’t really know their breed well. It is the parent clubs which are the guardians of the breed standards, and, perhaps more importantly, the interpreters of them.
Dr. Haines’ insight highlighted, in my opinion, the usefulness of working with members of the dog breeding community. That community is a complex one which can be difficult to fully understand from the outside.
Gail K. Smith, VMD, PhD: “Efficacy of hip dysplasia screening: An animal welfare imperative”
Dr. Smith is the veterinary surgeon who designed the PennHip screening system for hip dysplasia. The more traditional Orthopedic Foundation for Animals screening system involves subjective judgement of a dog’s hips as poor, fair, good, or excellent. PennHip, on the other hand, provides an objectively determined “distraction index,” a numerical measurement of the amount of hip laxity (where more laxity implies worse disease). Dr. Smith explained that his PennHip system is particularly useful for genetic studies of hip dysplasia because it is a better measurement of phenotype, for use in correlation to genotype. In other words, if you want to study what genes produce hip dysplasia, an objective numerical value describing the individual animal’s anatomy is more useful than a subjective value like “fair.”
Of course, the question arises: can other characteristics be measured using numerical scales? How do you measure the flatness of a bulldog’s face? There is work to be done in this area.
Steve Zawistowski, PhD, CAAB: closing remarks
PhD behaviorist Dr. Sawistowski explicitly identified a fissure between those who breed dogs and those who identify themselves as members of animal welfare organizations. He said, “We are going to have to heal that fissure before we can heal the dogs that we all know and love.” This conference did a great job of outlining this goal and the current situation and identifying priorities to be addressed.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Purebred Paradox, part three: Analyses of the situation
(Continued from part two.)
Below are my musings on some of the talks at last week’s conference, The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. Specifically, these talks delve deeper into what some of the current health risks are for purebred dogs, and why.
Brenda Bonnett, BSc, DVM, PhD: “Breed risks for disease in purebred dogs”
Dr. Bonnett is an epidemiologist who worked with “12 years of [health] data from over 200,000 dogs yearly,” obtained form Agria Pet Insurance in Sweden. Her talk was fascinating; placed as the very first presentation, it was a great introduction to the conference. She showed a series of graphs comparing the risk of different diseases in different breeds. Using the pet health insurance data, she could identify some risks as part of the risk of “being a dog” (diseases equally likely to occur in any breed) versus the risk of, for example, “being a German shepherd” (hip dysplasia, much more likely to occur in that breed than in most others). These graphs made the case very clearly that many breeds have risks of particular diseases.
The graphs were also an excellent way of demonstrating which diseases should be prioritized in particular breeds. She talked specifically about Cavalier King Charles spaniels, a breed which is prone to a particularly painful brain disorder called syringomyelia. Syringomyelia in CKCS was publicized in Pedigree Dogs Exposed and has been receiving a great deal of attention as a result. But her data suggested that another breed problem, heart disease, is much more prevalent. Syringomyelia, a disease in which your brain is squeezed out of your skull because your head is too small, is certainly very sexy, but if a CKCS is much more likely to die of heart disease, perhaps the issue of the heart disease should be addressed first.
But we already knew that different breeds get different diseases, right? When you are picking the breed of your next puppy, if you’re doing your research, part of your decision is whether you can deal with the risks of that particular breed. Is it more likely to get hip dysplasia? Heart disease? Cancer? Dr. Bonnett made the point that people will accept some types of risk, and some levels of risk, but not others. Life has some risks that you can't avoid; playing with sticks can be risky for a dog (GI obstruction! cracked teeth! splinters migrating into the sinuses!) but people accept those risks because they are part of being a dog. However, owners also accept the risks which are part of being a particular breed. Should they?
Dr. Bonnett concluded her talk by telling the story of a Bernese Mountain Dog (berner) owner who had come up to her after a previous talk. This woman had said that she had known that berners suffered from an increased rate of cancer, but had had no idea quite how bad the situation was until she listened to Dr. Bonnett’s presentation. However, this woman said, she would keep owning berners, because they were her breed. One of the themes of the conference was certainly the deep loyalty people have to “their” breed. (I completely understand it, as I feel that way about golden retrievers.)
Ilana Reisner, DVM, PhD, DACVB: “Unintended consequences of breeding for conformation: Owner-directed aggression in English Springer Spaniels”
Dr. Reisner is a veterinary behaviorist who presented a case study of an owner-agressive English Springer spaniel. This breed is particularly known for what has been called “springer rage,” sudden fits of aggression to the owner. The subject of Dr. Reisner’s presentation, Pluto, had bitten every member of the household, including the 80 year old grandmother. Dr. Reisner joked, “It wasn't too bad, just a few amputations.” She made the point that, while the conference was focused on dog welfare, when people live with dogs who are suffering or who have behavior problems, human welfare is also affected.
Frances O. Smith, DVM, PhD: “The development of dog breeds: Why and how people breed dogs”
Dr. Smith was a veterinarian, Labrador retriever breeder, dog show judge, and theriogenologist. (A theriogenologist is a veterinary specialist who has advanced training and board certification in breeding and reproductive problems.) She was clearly an exemplary breeder. She talked about the best dog she ever bred, who was a conformation champion and a performance champion. Dr. Smith emphasized again the importance of breed specific traits in the hearts of owners and breeders. The breeds must stay unique and recognizable. Any other solution to the problem is going to be very hard for many dog lovers to accept.
Dr. Smith seemed to have been asked to speak as a representative of the breeder side of the debate. I wish that we could have heard from some breeders at the show who were not cherry-picked to be non-controversial, however. The Labrador is a sporting breed, and sporting dogs tend not to suffer from breeding for extreme characteristics, as they are often expected to still be able to do work. (To understand what is meant by “extreme characteristics,” enjoy this post by the producer of Pedigree Dogs Exposed about the Neapolitan mastiff.)
Frank McMillan, DVM, DACVIM: “The impact of puppy mills on the welfare of purebred dogs”
Dr. McMillan is an internal medicine specialist and employee of Best Friends animal shelter in Utah. He talked about the widely publicized problem of puppy mills (high-volume, commercial breeders, who I’d argue are irresponsible by definition). He showed a number of disturbing photos of adult breeding animals taken from filthy and unhealthy circumstances at various mills.
Dr. McMillan’s main point was that the psychological damage done by lack of socialization to adult breeding animals in high volume breeding facilities is severe and should not be overlooked. Even dogs maintained at sparkling clean facilities are not given the socialization time they need as puppies to function properly once they are taken out of the puppy mill as adults. He read accounts and showed photos of these adult rescues, and demonstrated their complete inability to bond with their new owners after months, some even unable to be housebroken as they could not be approached with a leash to be taken outside. He argued convincingly that many of these dogs should be considered victims of post-traumatic stress disorder. No amount of regulation or oversight by the USDA will change this fundamental lack of socialization of dogs kept in situations where they do not get a chance to experience the world outside of their kennel.
(To be continued.)
Below are my musings on some of the talks at last week’s conference, The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. Specifically, these talks delve deeper into what some of the current health risks are for purebred dogs, and why.
Brenda Bonnett, BSc, DVM, PhD: “Breed risks for disease in purebred dogs”
Dr. Bonnett is an epidemiologist who worked with “12 years of [health] data from over 200,000 dogs yearly,” obtained form Agria Pet Insurance in Sweden. Her talk was fascinating; placed as the very first presentation, it was a great introduction to the conference. She showed a series of graphs comparing the risk of different diseases in different breeds. Using the pet health insurance data, she could identify some risks as part of the risk of “being a dog” (diseases equally likely to occur in any breed) versus the risk of, for example, “being a German shepherd” (hip dysplasia, much more likely to occur in that breed than in most others). These graphs made the case very clearly that many breeds have risks of particular diseases.
The graphs were also an excellent way of demonstrating which diseases should be prioritized in particular breeds. She talked specifically about Cavalier King Charles spaniels, a breed which is prone to a particularly painful brain disorder called syringomyelia. Syringomyelia in CKCS was publicized in Pedigree Dogs Exposed and has been receiving a great deal of attention as a result. But her data suggested that another breed problem, heart disease, is much more prevalent. Syringomyelia, a disease in which your brain is squeezed out of your skull because your head is too small, is certainly very sexy, but if a CKCS is much more likely to die of heart disease, perhaps the issue of the heart disease should be addressed first.
But we already knew that different breeds get different diseases, right? When you are picking the breed of your next puppy, if you’re doing your research, part of your decision is whether you can deal with the risks of that particular breed. Is it more likely to get hip dysplasia? Heart disease? Cancer? Dr. Bonnett made the point that people will accept some types of risk, and some levels of risk, but not others. Life has some risks that you can't avoid; playing with sticks can be risky for a dog (GI obstruction! cracked teeth! splinters migrating into the sinuses!) but people accept those risks because they are part of being a dog. However, owners also accept the risks which are part of being a particular breed. Should they?
Dr. Bonnett concluded her talk by telling the story of a Bernese Mountain Dog (berner) owner who had come up to her after a previous talk. This woman had said that she had known that berners suffered from an increased rate of cancer, but had had no idea quite how bad the situation was until she listened to Dr. Bonnett’s presentation. However, this woman said, she would keep owning berners, because they were her breed. One of the themes of the conference was certainly the deep loyalty people have to “their” breed. (I completely understand it, as I feel that way about golden retrievers.)
Ilana Reisner, DVM, PhD, DACVB: “Unintended consequences of breeding for conformation: Owner-directed aggression in English Springer Spaniels”
Dr. Reisner is a veterinary behaviorist who presented a case study of an owner-agressive English Springer spaniel. This breed is particularly known for what has been called “springer rage,” sudden fits of aggression to the owner. The subject of Dr. Reisner’s presentation, Pluto, had bitten every member of the household, including the 80 year old grandmother. Dr. Reisner joked, “It wasn't too bad, just a few amputations.” She made the point that, while the conference was focused on dog welfare, when people live with dogs who are suffering or who have behavior problems, human welfare is also affected.
Frances O. Smith, DVM, PhD: “The development of dog breeds: Why and how people breed dogs”
Dr. Smith was a veterinarian, Labrador retriever breeder, dog show judge, and theriogenologist. (A theriogenologist is a veterinary specialist who has advanced training and board certification in breeding and reproductive problems.) She was clearly an exemplary breeder. She talked about the best dog she ever bred, who was a conformation champion and a performance champion. Dr. Smith emphasized again the importance of breed specific traits in the hearts of owners and breeders. The breeds must stay unique and recognizable. Any other solution to the problem is going to be very hard for many dog lovers to accept.
Dr. Smith seemed to have been asked to speak as a representative of the breeder side of the debate. I wish that we could have heard from some breeders at the show who were not cherry-picked to be non-controversial, however. The Labrador is a sporting breed, and sporting dogs tend not to suffer from breeding for extreme characteristics, as they are often expected to still be able to do work. (To understand what is meant by “extreme characteristics,” enjoy this post by the producer of Pedigree Dogs Exposed about the Neapolitan mastiff.)
Frank McMillan, DVM, DACVIM: “The impact of puppy mills on the welfare of purebred dogs”
Dr. McMillan is an internal medicine specialist and employee of Best Friends animal shelter in Utah. He talked about the widely publicized problem of puppy mills (high-volume, commercial breeders, who I’d argue are irresponsible by definition). He showed a number of disturbing photos of adult breeding animals taken from filthy and unhealthy circumstances at various mills.
Dr. McMillan’s main point was that the psychological damage done by lack of socialization to adult breeding animals in high volume breeding facilities is severe and should not be overlooked. Even dogs maintained at sparkling clean facilities are not given the socialization time they need as puppies to function properly once they are taken out of the puppy mill as adults. He read accounts and showed photos of these adult rescues, and demonstrated their complete inability to bond with their new owners after months, some even unable to be housebroken as they could not be approached with a leash to be taken outside. He argued convincingly that many of these dogs should be considered victims of post-traumatic stress disorder. No amount of regulation or oversight by the USDA will change this fundamental lack of socialization of dogs kept in situations where they do not get a chance to experience the world outside of their kennel.
(To be continued.)
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
The Purebred Paradox, part two: What’s the problem?
(Continued from part one.)
I recently attended The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. These are my musings on a few of the talks at the conference, specifically those detailing what exactly the problem is with current methods of dog breeding.
David Sargan, PhD: “The RSPCA report on purebred dog breeding: Conformational selection and inbreeding in dog breeds”
David Sargan summarized the 2008 RSPCA report on purebred dog breeding. Before the release of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary, the RSPCA had not really focused on issues in purebred dog breeding. This report represents their initial attempt to grapple with how they were going to address these issues.
The report identifies two welfare issues: exaggerated anatomical features that reduce quality of life, and an increased prevalence of inherited disorders. It also discusses current screening practices. Standardized screening is available for eye and hip disorders, among others. These screens are used only by a self-selecting population, however, so are not useful for a description of the true prevalence of a particular disorder in the population. For example, dogs which are not intended to be bred — “pet quality” dogs — are less likely to be screened, though they may well have a genetic disorder. Dogs with unsubtle signs of disease may also not be screened, but simply treated. DNA tests are being developed for many diseases, but many diseases exist for which no DNA test has yet been developed. Of course, many diseases do not lend themselves to DNA tests, as they may be multifactorial in origin, due to many different genes, or to interactions between genetics and environment.
The report outlines possible ways forward. Among its many recommendations are more systematic data collection; an increase in genetic diversity, both by limiting inbreeding and by opening the kennel club stud books (allowing offspring of unregistered dogs to be registered as purebreds); and work to improve the screening tests available.
The report concludes: “the most important element is to ensure that all stakeholder groups buy into the process and fully support the action(s) they need to take. This is the challenge that lies ahead.”
Jemima Harrison: “Pedigree Dogs Exposed: The Aftermath”
The producer of the hugely influential Pedigree Dogs Exposed spoke on the aftermath of the film. Actually, she started by outlining the premath, noting that change has been called for in pedigree dog breeding for over 100 years, and including newspaper stories and other references. She wondered if her film had caused enough change to really get and keep the ball rolling — has the sea change happened? Or is there more work to do?
She wasn’t sure, but she did include a video of Fiona, “the first mongrel to be shown at Crufts.” Fiona is the first low uric acid Dalmation to be shown at the number one UK dog show. The LUA Dalmations are the product of a single outcross to a pointer, and subsequent selective breeding to remove the gene for a genetic predisposition to kidney stones whch is present in every Dalmation except for those with this pointer heritage.
(Continued in part three.)
I recently attended The Purebred Paradox: on the health and welfare of purebred dogs. These are my musings on a few of the talks at the conference, specifically those detailing what exactly the problem is with current methods of dog breeding.
David Sargan, PhD: “The RSPCA report on purebred dog breeding: Conformational selection and inbreeding in dog breeds”
David Sargan summarized the 2008 RSPCA report on purebred dog breeding. Before the release of the Pedigree Dogs Exposed documentary, the RSPCA had not really focused on issues in purebred dog breeding. This report represents their initial attempt to grapple with how they were going to address these issues.
The report identifies two welfare issues: exaggerated anatomical features that reduce quality of life, and an increased prevalence of inherited disorders. It also discusses current screening practices. Standardized screening is available for eye and hip disorders, among others. These screens are used only by a self-selecting population, however, so are not useful for a description of the true prevalence of a particular disorder in the population. For example, dogs which are not intended to be bred — “pet quality” dogs — are less likely to be screened, though they may well have a genetic disorder. Dogs with unsubtle signs of disease may also not be screened, but simply treated. DNA tests are being developed for many diseases, but many diseases exist for which no DNA test has yet been developed. Of course, many diseases do not lend themselves to DNA tests, as they may be multifactorial in origin, due to many different genes, or to interactions between genetics and environment.
The report outlines possible ways forward. Among its many recommendations are more systematic data collection; an increase in genetic diversity, both by limiting inbreeding and by opening the kennel club stud books (allowing offspring of unregistered dogs to be registered as purebreds); and work to improve the screening tests available.
The report concludes: “the most important element is to ensure that all stakeholder groups buy into the process and fully support the action(s) they need to take. This is the challenge that lies ahead.”
Jemima Harrison: “Pedigree Dogs Exposed: The Aftermath”
The producer of the hugely influential Pedigree Dogs Exposed spoke on the aftermath of the film. Actually, she started by outlining the premath, noting that change has been called for in pedigree dog breeding for over 100 years, and including newspaper stories and other references. She wondered if her film had caused enough change to really get and keep the ball rolling — has the sea change happened? Or is there more work to do?
She wasn’t sure, but she did include a video of Fiona, “the first mongrel to be shown at Crufts.” Fiona is the first low uric acid Dalmation to be shown at the number one UK dog show. The LUA Dalmations are the product of a single outcross to a pointer, and subsequent selective breeding to remove the gene for a genetic predisposition to kidney stones whch is present in every Dalmation except for those with this pointer heritage.
(Continued in part three.)
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The Purebred Paradox, part one: Background
In 2008, the BBC aired Pedigree Dogs Exposed, a documentary about breeding practices in purebred dogs. The documentary suggested that health problems are on the increase in purebred dogs, and that many of them are avoidable. Specifically, some problems are due to limited gene pools and unintentional fixing of traits such as predisposition to cancer; others are due to intentional breeding for extreme characteristics like flat faces or heavily wrinkled skin. This documentary triggered a strong reaction from the public, and the beginnings of some changes in how members of the UK breed clubs approach breeding dogs.
It also triggered a negative reaction from the British Kennel Club, and a great deal of controversy. The two sides of the debate are, in my own words:
One of the unstated goals of the conference seemed to be to get the two sides, breeders and advocates for change, to start a real discussion. In my opinion, the discussion was hampered from the start by the fact that the conference was not organized by breeders, and was by no means neutral ground. Representatives from the breeder camp were underrepresented, and seemed as well to have been selected to be not too controversial. Everyone was very civil, but I didn't feel like anyone’s mind was really changed.
That didn’t stop me from having two of the most enjoyable days I’ve spent in months or even years. About half of the speakers were veterinarians, and vets were very well represented at the conference overall, which surprised me. It has been my observation in veterinary school that veterinarians are as a general rule not greatly worked up by breeding practices — it’s part of the profession’s usual refusal to judge the husbandry decisions of an animal’s owner in public unless truly abusive. Apparently some vets are coming to see some breeding practices as crossing that line into abuse, and are interested in seeing change.
It shouldn’t need saying, but I will say it, just to be super clear: I have nothing against breeding purebred dogs in theory, and there are quite a few extremely responsible, ethical breeders out there — I met a lot of them at this conference. But there are breeders who do seem to be blind to the discomfort that breeding for extreme characteristics can cause dogs, and there are some breeds that I believe cannot be humanely bred under current practices, though could certainly be humanely bred with some conservative modifications to the breed standard (or to interpretations of it). I am not anti-breeder, but I am very much against certain breeding practices.
(To be continued.)
It also triggered a negative reaction from the British Kennel Club, and a great deal of controversy. The two sides of the debate are, in my own words:
- Dog breeds are part of our heritage and are important to us. Each breed has its defining characteristics (the unique color of the golden retriever’s coat, the size and shape of the Great Dane, the jowly face of the English bulldog). These characteristics are what make each breed unique, and should be celebrated and maintained. I’ll call the people on this side of the debate the dog breeders, at risk of a gross overgeneralization.
- The health of many purebred dogs is endangered both by consequences of inbreeding (such as overrepresentation of genes for cancer in Bernese Mountain dogs) or by breeding for extreme traits (such as the extremely flat face of the pug). We should start prioritizing the health of our purebred dogs over maintenance of breed purity. I’ll call the people on this side of the debate the advocates for change, although many dog breeders take this viewpoint as well.
One of the unstated goals of the conference seemed to be to get the two sides, breeders and advocates for change, to start a real discussion. In my opinion, the discussion was hampered from the start by the fact that the conference was not organized by breeders, and was by no means neutral ground. Representatives from the breeder camp were underrepresented, and seemed as well to have been selected to be not too controversial. Everyone was very civil, but I didn't feel like anyone’s mind was really changed.
That didn’t stop me from having two of the most enjoyable days I’ve spent in months or even years. About half of the speakers were veterinarians, and vets were very well represented at the conference overall, which surprised me. It has been my observation in veterinary school that veterinarians are as a general rule not greatly worked up by breeding practices — it’s part of the profession’s usual refusal to judge the husbandry decisions of an animal’s owner in public unless truly abusive. Apparently some vets are coming to see some breeding practices as crossing that line into abuse, and are interested in seeing change.
It shouldn’t need saying, but I will say it, just to be super clear: I have nothing against breeding purebred dogs in theory, and there are quite a few extremely responsible, ethical breeders out there — I met a lot of them at this conference. But there are breeders who do seem to be blind to the discomfort that breeding for extreme characteristics can cause dogs, and there are some breeds that I believe cannot be humanely bred under current practices, though could certainly be humanely bred with some conservative modifications to the breed standard (or to interpretations of it). I am not anti-breeder, but I am very much against certain breeding practices.
(To be continued.)
Monday, October 18, 2010
So how can we make things better for dairy cows?
Recently we had a lecture from Dr. Gray on production medicine. Before I explain what production medicine is, let me give you a feel for what Dr. Gray is like. He is probably the member of our food animal faculty with whom I agree the most about food animal welfare, although we certainly don’t see completely eye to eye. He is a hugely amusing lecturer due to his propensity to tell involved stories about something that happened on the job recently, and to write random bits of them on the whiteboard.
This particular whiteboard was such a work of art that I convinced my classmate LPS to photograph half of it, at risk of looking like a nerd in front of the class. You will note that, at one point, Dr. Gray was telling how he had made a plan with a client to meet on a particular date, and he wrote the date on the board. (I was tempted to raise my hand to ask if that would be on the test, but since I had sassed him twice in lecture on the previous day, I decided everyone would be happiest if I kept my mouth shut.) Another friend, LPK, at one point noted that Dr. Gray had erased three milk production curves from the previous day in order to draw a fourth. These were generic milk production curves, i.e., “She makes less, then she makes more, then she makes less.” He could have simply pointed to one of the previous ones. Here, in all its glory, is half of the whiteboard:
(Thanks, LPS! Also: the “countdown to clinics” is maintained by my class, not Dr. Gray. That’s a real count; I will be playing doctor in less than 171 days.)
Dr. Gray explained what production medicine is by telling a story. He was in the truck, driving to lecture a bunch of third year students, when he got a call from the manager of a farm. The owner of the farm had set some financial goals for the farm; he wanted to see them sell 75,000 lbs of milk a day. Since they were currently selling 61,000 lbs, the manager had a problem, and he was calling Dr. Gray to talk about it.
Now, if you are a dairy farmer and you want to sell more milk, you have two ways of doing it. You can milk more cows, or you can get more milk from the cows you already have. Buying or raising more cows involves some overhead costs: if you get too many more, you need to build a new barn. If you try to cram too many into the barns that you already have, they will not do well, and the result will be decreased milk production. This farm manager wanted to convince the cows he had to give him some more milk, and maybe figure out if it was safe to keep a few more cows as well.
There are a lot of factors to take into account in this game. How many cows can you fit? If you have too many, they will all be waiting in line for a long time at the milking parlor. This will eat into their daily quota of lying around chewing their cuds, which will mean poorer quality digestion and less milk. How much milk will each cow produce? This has a lot to do with what she eats. Is she eating as much as you want her to, or is something preventing her from doing so (too many cows at the feed bunk)? Is there a way you can change her diet to provide more energy for her to turn in to milk? If you provide too much energy, her rumen will acidify. At low levels (“sub-clinical rumenal acidosis”) she won’t look sick, but her life expectancy will be shortened, and, you guessed it, she will make less milk. At higher levels, she can have ulcers which eat their way through the wall of her rumen and seed her bloodstream with bacteria. The bacteria make it to her lungs, where they generate clots. And that can kill her in a fairly unpleasant manner.
Production medicine is all about balance. More of a particular factor will give me more milk until it starts giving me less milk. To some extent, the welfare of the cow is in sync with the welfare of the farmer’s bank account. A sick cow doesn’t give as much milk as a healthy one. But to a very large extent, this relationship does not hold true. It often makes more financial sense to sacrifice optimal cow health (accepting sub-clinical rumenal acidosis in many cows in your herd) in the name of income (increased milk production in the remaining cows due to high energy feed). At other times, farmers simply can’t afford veterinary care for every cow that needs it when she might need it.
So do I think dairy farmers are jerks who don’t care about their cows? I absolutely do not. I have a lot of sympathy for their situation, and the ones I have met have been really nice guys who clearly do like their cows. But, to give an example of a population of humans that we all know care about animals — people who love their dogs make bad management choices when they are in bad situations. And dairy farmers are, many of them, in bad situations.
I believe that if they could afford to, more farmers would have smaller farms, with more personal care of their cows, with more cows out on grass. And I believe that almost none of them would skimp on veterinary care if they could afford to give their cows the care they want. But dairy farmers are suffering from very low milk prices right now. They do not have enough income to have the luxury of doing the right thing. They are just trying to get by. They are driven to making bad choices, like packing too many cows into a barn, or sacrificing veterinary care.
Mostly, the small farmers are driven out of business, and the large farmers are taking over, because that makes more financial sense. Dr. Gray reports that a 5,000 cow dairy is the most efficient one. Are large farms worse? Well, if they are more profitable, the cows are likely to get better nutrition and better veterinary care. Other things will be better for them too — the concrete that almost all dairy cows live on will be covered in better bedding, for example.
But in my opinion, the very best farm is the small farm with enough money. On that farm, there are few enough cows that they can be put out on grass sometimes. (Imagine getting 5,000 cows out onto grass, and then onto the next pasture segment a few days later, and then onto the next pasture segment a few days after that, not to mention getting them all to the milking machine at least twice a day.) It is a farm where the farmer can know each of his cows, and notice right away when one of them is not quite right, so that she can receive medical attention promptly. It is a farm where the number of cows is small enough that infectious disease is not a big problem. Are there any farms like this left? Vanishingly few, if any. Dr. Gray opined that the big farm is the farm of the future. The small farm is on its death bed.
I raised my hand and asked Dr. Gray if he thought there was anything veterinarians could to affect this situation, to try to fight against the death of the small farm, or otherwise take steps to change the situation of dairy cows. He replied, “No.” In his opinion, no one really cares all that much about cows. There are some people who do, like a lot of the students in the class, but he suggested that we were the exception, when you look at society as a whole.
The lecture moved on, but I wasn’t done. During the break, I talked to Dr. Gray more, along with Daria, a classmate of mine who has worked on farms and is interested in food animal medicine and herd health. I pointed out that people do care about food animals; they voted “yes” on Prop 2 in California, knowing that it would almost certainly raise food prices. Daria added that consumers do have power to affect farm animal practices; there is almost no milk sold in the Northeast from cows that were given rBST (a synthetic growth hormone), and that is because there was no demand for that milk from consumers.
Dr. Gray protested that neither of those things were useful things to do. Proposition 2 enacted rules with no science behind them and may not actually make things better for animals. And science shows that rBST isn’t bad for cows or people. (I’m not going to get into whether I agree with either of those statements; they are his viewpoint.)
I replied that the point is that consumers have power. What they are lacking is information. I noted that I have always purchased organic milk in grocery stores. Until I started vet school, I was under the misapprehension that this would lead to at least somewhat improved welfare for the cows in question. I now realize that that is not true. But I have always been willing to spend more money to purchase a better life for the cow whose milk I drink. I believe that other people agree with me.
The problem is that people don’t know how to vote with their pocketbooks for a good life for cows. They don’t necessarily know whether or not dairy cows have a good life. (My opinion: it is not by any means torture. But it is unpleasant enough that since taking this class I have stopped buying milk in the grocery store.) So my answer to the question “what can veterinarians do?” is this: veterinarians can educate.
What can you do? Unfortunately, there isn’t a good answer to this question.
This particular whiteboard was such a work of art that I convinced my classmate LPS to photograph half of it, at risk of looking like a nerd in front of the class. You will note that, at one point, Dr. Gray was telling how he had made a plan with a client to meet on a particular date, and he wrote the date on the board. (I was tempted to raise my hand to ask if that would be on the test, but since I had sassed him twice in lecture on the previous day, I decided everyone would be happiest if I kept my mouth shut.) Another friend, LPK, at one point noted that Dr. Gray had erased three milk production curves from the previous day in order to draw a fourth. These were generic milk production curves, i.e., “She makes less, then she makes more, then she makes less.” He could have simply pointed to one of the previous ones. Here, in all its glory, is half of the whiteboard:
(Thanks, LPS! Also: the “countdown to clinics” is maintained by my class, not Dr. Gray. That’s a real count; I will be playing doctor in less than 171 days.)
Dr. Gray explained what production medicine is by telling a story. He was in the truck, driving to lecture a bunch of third year students, when he got a call from the manager of a farm. The owner of the farm had set some financial goals for the farm; he wanted to see them sell 75,000 lbs of milk a day. Since they were currently selling 61,000 lbs, the manager had a problem, and he was calling Dr. Gray to talk about it.
Now, if you are a dairy farmer and you want to sell more milk, you have two ways of doing it. You can milk more cows, or you can get more milk from the cows you already have. Buying or raising more cows involves some overhead costs: if you get too many more, you need to build a new barn. If you try to cram too many into the barns that you already have, they will not do well, and the result will be decreased milk production. This farm manager wanted to convince the cows he had to give him some more milk, and maybe figure out if it was safe to keep a few more cows as well.
There are a lot of factors to take into account in this game. How many cows can you fit? If you have too many, they will all be waiting in line for a long time at the milking parlor. This will eat into their daily quota of lying around chewing their cuds, which will mean poorer quality digestion and less milk. How much milk will each cow produce? This has a lot to do with what she eats. Is she eating as much as you want her to, or is something preventing her from doing so (too many cows at the feed bunk)? Is there a way you can change her diet to provide more energy for her to turn in to milk? If you provide too much energy, her rumen will acidify. At low levels (“sub-clinical rumenal acidosis”) she won’t look sick, but her life expectancy will be shortened, and, you guessed it, she will make less milk. At higher levels, she can have ulcers which eat their way through the wall of her rumen and seed her bloodstream with bacteria. The bacteria make it to her lungs, where they generate clots. And that can kill her in a fairly unpleasant manner.
Production medicine is all about balance. More of a particular factor will give me more milk until it starts giving me less milk. To some extent, the welfare of the cow is in sync with the welfare of the farmer’s bank account. A sick cow doesn’t give as much milk as a healthy one. But to a very large extent, this relationship does not hold true. It often makes more financial sense to sacrifice optimal cow health (accepting sub-clinical rumenal acidosis in many cows in your herd) in the name of income (increased milk production in the remaining cows due to high energy feed). At other times, farmers simply can’t afford veterinary care for every cow that needs it when she might need it.
So do I think dairy farmers are jerks who don’t care about their cows? I absolutely do not. I have a lot of sympathy for their situation, and the ones I have met have been really nice guys who clearly do like their cows. But, to give an example of a population of humans that we all know care about animals — people who love their dogs make bad management choices when they are in bad situations. And dairy farmers are, many of them, in bad situations.
I believe that if they could afford to, more farmers would have smaller farms, with more personal care of their cows, with more cows out on grass. And I believe that almost none of them would skimp on veterinary care if they could afford to give their cows the care they want. But dairy farmers are suffering from very low milk prices right now. They do not have enough income to have the luxury of doing the right thing. They are just trying to get by. They are driven to making bad choices, like packing too many cows into a barn, or sacrificing veterinary care.
Mostly, the small farmers are driven out of business, and the large farmers are taking over, because that makes more financial sense. Dr. Gray reports that a 5,000 cow dairy is the most efficient one. Are large farms worse? Well, if they are more profitable, the cows are likely to get better nutrition and better veterinary care. Other things will be better for them too — the concrete that almost all dairy cows live on will be covered in better bedding, for example.
But in my opinion, the very best farm is the small farm with enough money. On that farm, there are few enough cows that they can be put out on grass sometimes. (Imagine getting 5,000 cows out onto grass, and then onto the next pasture segment a few days later, and then onto the next pasture segment a few days after that, not to mention getting them all to the milking machine at least twice a day.) It is a farm where the farmer can know each of his cows, and notice right away when one of them is not quite right, so that she can receive medical attention promptly. It is a farm where the number of cows is small enough that infectious disease is not a big problem. Are there any farms like this left? Vanishingly few, if any. Dr. Gray opined that the big farm is the farm of the future. The small farm is on its death bed.
I raised my hand and asked Dr. Gray if he thought there was anything veterinarians could to affect this situation, to try to fight against the death of the small farm, or otherwise take steps to change the situation of dairy cows. He replied, “No.” In his opinion, no one really cares all that much about cows. There are some people who do, like a lot of the students in the class, but he suggested that we were the exception, when you look at society as a whole.
The lecture moved on, but I wasn’t done. During the break, I talked to Dr. Gray more, along with Daria, a classmate of mine who has worked on farms and is interested in food animal medicine and herd health. I pointed out that people do care about food animals; they voted “yes” on Prop 2 in California, knowing that it would almost certainly raise food prices. Daria added that consumers do have power to affect farm animal practices; there is almost no milk sold in the Northeast from cows that were given rBST (a synthetic growth hormone), and that is because there was no demand for that milk from consumers.
Dr. Gray protested that neither of those things were useful things to do. Proposition 2 enacted rules with no science behind them and may not actually make things better for animals. And science shows that rBST isn’t bad for cows or people. (I’m not going to get into whether I agree with either of those statements; they are his viewpoint.)
I replied that the point is that consumers have power. What they are lacking is information. I noted that I have always purchased organic milk in grocery stores. Until I started vet school, I was under the misapprehension that this would lead to at least somewhat improved welfare for the cows in question. I now realize that that is not true. But I have always been willing to spend more money to purchase a better life for the cow whose milk I drink. I believe that other people agree with me.
The problem is that people don’t know how to vote with their pocketbooks for a good life for cows. They don’t necessarily know whether or not dairy cows have a good life. (My opinion: it is not by any means torture. But it is unpleasant enough that since taking this class I have stopped buying milk in the grocery store.) So my answer to the question “what can veterinarians do?” is this: veterinarians can educate.
What can you do? Unfortunately, there isn’t a good answer to this question.
- Buy organic milk at the grocery store? This will probably not make any contribution to dairy cow welfare. Farmers who produce organic milk have an incentive to not treat sick cows, because once a cow has had any antibiotics at all, her milk is no longer considered organic, and will bring a lower price. Regulations about what is organic make no specifications about humane handling of cows.
- Buy less milk? I certainly think that Americans consume too much milk (mostly in the form of cheese). But buying less milk right now is probably going to have the immediate effect of driving more small farmers out of business, which is not the best thing from a dairy cow’s welfare standpoint.
- Buy milk from farms with grass-fed cows. This is what I am trying to do, but it is awfully hard to find farms like this! I have failed to find milk from grass-fed cows in my area, but my farmer’s market does provide me with cheese and yogurt made from milk from grass-fed cows. Check out your local farmer’s market. Does your town lack a farmer’s market? Maybe you can start one. The market in my town was started by one guy with a lot of enthusiasm a few years ago. Does your town’s farmer’s market not have milk, cheese, or yogurt from grass-fed cows? Let the organizers know that you’d like it to. Or maybe you can set up a buying co-op. Think out of the box.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Veterinarians accused of predatory lending
Really interesting article in VIN News: Health credit programs: safety net or predatory lending? Apparently the New York State Attorney General’s Office is investigating CareCredit, alleging that it “preys on seniors and vulnerable patients.” CareCredit is used at my school’s veterinary hospital, and many others, to provide on-the-spot credit for people who can’t pay their veterinary bills but do want to find a way to afford a procedure. (The alternative in many, I’m guessing most, cases is euthanasia of the pet.)
I think CareCredit is really important; without it, people who aren’t prepared for how high veterinary medical expenses can be these days would have to euthanize their pets instead of getting treatment. The New York State Attorney General's Office reports the following consumer complaints (it is not clear how many of the providers involved were veterinarians):
Health care providers misled them that CareCredit comes interest-free when in fact interest is charged when balances aren’t paid off following a promotional period of six to 18 months.
I wonder how many of these people were told of the card’s terms but failed to absorb them due to the emotional overload that can happen when your animal is in the ER and extremely sick. It does sound like veterinarians need to be a lot more careful in explaining those terms.
Services proposed but never performed were charged to CareCredit accounts, and account holders were unable to obtain refunds.
That is upsetting. I don’t think it’s a problem with CareCredit, though. I think it’s a problem with individual practitioners.
Medical offices pressed clients to use CareCredit even when clients had the cash to pay.
Both upsetting and a potential problem with CareCredit; I’ll be curious to see where this part of the investigation goes. More specifics would be nice, too. Since CareCredit is interest-free for some period of time, it may actually be in a customer’s best interest to use it, if they are sure they can pay it down promptly.
In general, I would hope to see legal consequences for practitioners who behaved illegally or unethically. I would hope not to see consequences for CareCredit if the only problem is with individual practitioners.
The article goes on to quote Jeff Stillinger, a practice management consultant and Certified Veterinary Assistant:
“We in the industry have failed miserably with reminding the client they need to budget and save... I have never once been handed, or handed out, a puppy/kitten package that contains such information. We don’t have to go overboard and do it for them, or teach them how. That’s not our responsibility. We simply need to remind them it needs to be done.”
I agree. I think veterinary culture emphasizes stepping back, letting the client make their own decisions, which is good — but when that is at the expense of failing to educate, it is bad. People have no way of knowing when they buy a puppy that a visit to the ER after a bad car accident could cost thousands of dollars. It’s our job to prepare them for that.
I think CareCredit is really important; without it, people who aren’t prepared for how high veterinary medical expenses can be these days would have to euthanize their pets instead of getting treatment. The New York State Attorney General's Office reports the following consumer complaints (it is not clear how many of the providers involved were veterinarians):
Health care providers misled them that CareCredit comes interest-free when in fact interest is charged when balances aren’t paid off following a promotional period of six to 18 months.
I wonder how many of these people were told of the card’s terms but failed to absorb them due to the emotional overload that can happen when your animal is in the ER and extremely sick. It does sound like veterinarians need to be a lot more careful in explaining those terms.
Services proposed but never performed were charged to CareCredit accounts, and account holders were unable to obtain refunds.
That is upsetting. I don’t think it’s a problem with CareCredit, though. I think it’s a problem with individual practitioners.
Medical offices pressed clients to use CareCredit even when clients had the cash to pay.
Both upsetting and a potential problem with CareCredit; I’ll be curious to see where this part of the investigation goes. More specifics would be nice, too. Since CareCredit is interest-free for some period of time, it may actually be in a customer’s best interest to use it, if they are sure they can pay it down promptly.
In general, I would hope to see legal consequences for practitioners who behaved illegally or unethically. I would hope not to see consequences for CareCredit if the only problem is with individual practitioners.
The article goes on to quote Jeff Stillinger, a practice management consultant and Certified Veterinary Assistant:
“We in the industry have failed miserably with reminding the client they need to budget and save... I have never once been handed, or handed out, a puppy/kitten package that contains such information. We don’t have to go overboard and do it for them, or teach them how. That’s not our responsibility. We simply need to remind them it needs to be done.”
I agree. I think veterinary culture emphasizes stepping back, letting the client make their own decisions, which is good — but when that is at the expense of failing to educate, it is bad. People have no way of knowing when they buy a puppy that a visit to the ER after a bad car accident could cost thousands of dollars. It’s our job to prepare them for that.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
A day in the life: ethics from large and small animal vets
I had trouble choosing just one anecdote to relay from today’s lectures, so I’m going with two, and calling this “a day in the life” (of a third year vet student) rather than “veterinary fact of the day.”
Our large animal medicine and surgery lectures this morning were on oral and GI diseases in cows. Dr. Big (not his real name) started the GI lecture with an overview of the situation in which today’s dairy cow finds herself. He pointed out that ruminants made an interesting gamble a long time ago, relying on bacteria in their huge stomachs to convert their food into energy. Then man started selectively breeding them, and today’s dairy cow looks very different than she did even fifty years ago. A cow today might produce 150 lbs of milk a day during her peak lactation. “I bet half of you don’t even weigh that much,” he said. He went on to opine that almost every disease which we will be learning about during our five hours of GI lecture (not all of that was today!) is man made. “Put the cow on a pasture and she’ll live for 20 years with no problems. Put her in a dairy herd and ask for 150 lbs/day, and her mean life expectancy is 5 years.” (I found it interesting that he equated being on pasture with not producing milk. Every week at my local farmer’s market, I purchase yogurt made from milk from grass-fed dairy cows, out on pasture right here in Massachusetts.) He went on to suggest that we should all read The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which he felt was a very interesting book, “though I don’t think Pollan got it entirely right.”
I just get little hearts in my eyes when food animal vets talk like this. Cows should be on pasture! They get sick because of things we do! It is lovely to see people walking in the grey area between ignoring all welfare implications (“cows do just fine in open barns, they don’t need to be out on grass”) and ignoring the realities of the situation (“no one should ever drink milk because cows shouldn’t be raised the way they are”). Dr. Big thinks we can do better than we do, and he tries to make it happen, by teaching vet students and (I presume) by encouraging farmers to make changes where they can. Compare that to the lecture from the swine practitioner earlier this week, who felt that intensive farming of pigs was best for the pigs’ welfare.
From the other side of the fence, in anesthesia lecture we got a moment to think about the welfare of dogs. Dr. Bonne talked about managing brachycephalic (flat-faced) dogs when they recover from anesthesia. When a dog is under general anesthesia, it has an endotracheal tube (“trach tube”) put down its throat to help it breathe. Most dogs need to have the trach tube removed before they are fully awake. Not brachycephalics. Dr. Bonne showed us a photo of a bulldog: “Look, there he is, wide awake with the tube in, breathing wonderfully. They will do that for an hour or so.” Brachycephalics often have tracheas the width of a tomcat’s, just 5.5 mm in diameter. It is not really enough for them to breathe. When they wake up with a trach tube in, it may be the first time in their lives in which they can breathe easily. Dr. Bonne expounded: “Can you imagine, they must spend so much energy every day, just to breathe. They are perfectly happy with the trach tube in. You should leave it in until the last minute, until they are almost ready to walk out the door. Nobody else tolerates the tube the way that these dogs do.” To my mind, she didn’t go quite far enough — she didn’t ever suggest that perhaps brachycephalics should be bred with a little more care to whether or not they can breathe. But I still appreciated the rant, as far as it went.
What I did today: Two hours of small animal medicine and surgery lecture. Two hours of large animal medicine and surgery lecture. Lunch! (A meeting.) Two hours of anesthesia lecture. Home!
Our large animal medicine and surgery lectures this morning were on oral and GI diseases in cows. Dr. Big (not his real name) started the GI lecture with an overview of the situation in which today’s dairy cow finds herself. He pointed out that ruminants made an interesting gamble a long time ago, relying on bacteria in their huge stomachs to convert their food into energy. Then man started selectively breeding them, and today’s dairy cow looks very different than she did even fifty years ago. A cow today might produce 150 lbs of milk a day during her peak lactation. “I bet half of you don’t even weigh that much,” he said. He went on to opine that almost every disease which we will be learning about during our five hours of GI lecture (not all of that was today!) is man made. “Put the cow on a pasture and she’ll live for 20 years with no problems. Put her in a dairy herd and ask for 150 lbs/day, and her mean life expectancy is 5 years.” (I found it interesting that he equated being on pasture with not producing milk. Every week at my local farmer’s market, I purchase yogurt made from milk from grass-fed dairy cows, out on pasture right here in Massachusetts.) He went on to suggest that we should all read The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which he felt was a very interesting book, “though I don’t think Pollan got it entirely right.”
I just get little hearts in my eyes when food animal vets talk like this. Cows should be on pasture! They get sick because of things we do! It is lovely to see people walking in the grey area between ignoring all welfare implications (“cows do just fine in open barns, they don’t need to be out on grass”) and ignoring the realities of the situation (“no one should ever drink milk because cows shouldn’t be raised the way they are”). Dr. Big thinks we can do better than we do, and he tries to make it happen, by teaching vet students and (I presume) by encouraging farmers to make changes where they can. Compare that to the lecture from the swine practitioner earlier this week, who felt that intensive farming of pigs was best for the pigs’ welfare.
From the other side of the fence, in anesthesia lecture we got a moment to think about the welfare of dogs. Dr. Bonne talked about managing brachycephalic (flat-faced) dogs when they recover from anesthesia. When a dog is under general anesthesia, it has an endotracheal tube (“trach tube”) put down its throat to help it breathe. Most dogs need to have the trach tube removed before they are fully awake. Not brachycephalics. Dr. Bonne showed us a photo of a bulldog: “Look, there he is, wide awake with the tube in, breathing wonderfully. They will do that for an hour or so.” Brachycephalics often have tracheas the width of a tomcat’s, just 5.5 mm in diameter. It is not really enough for them to breathe. When they wake up with a trach tube in, it may be the first time in their lives in which they can breathe easily. Dr. Bonne expounded: “Can you imagine, they must spend so much energy every day, just to breathe. They are perfectly happy with the trach tube in. You should leave it in until the last minute, until they are almost ready to walk out the door. Nobody else tolerates the tube the way that these dogs do.” To my mind, she didn’t go quite far enough — she didn’t ever suggest that perhaps brachycephalics should be bred with a little more care to whether or not they can breathe. But I still appreciated the rant, as far as it went.
What I did today: Two hours of small animal medicine and surgery lecture. Two hours of large animal medicine and surgery lecture. Lunch! (A meeting.) Two hours of anesthesia lecture. Home!
Monday, August 23, 2010
A day in the life
My “fact of the day” today is just a series of reflections on what was quite a varied day. We started out with two hours of ethics lecture. Mmm, ethics, one of my favorite things. This was the first lecture in this class, and it was enjoyable (despite the fact that I had missed out on the notice that we were supposed to do the reading ahead of time — oops).
We talked about different kinds of ethics: contractarian, utilitarian, relational, rights-based, and respect for nature. The contractarian discussion was the most interesting to me. Do we have relationships with animals based on a contract? The obvious answer is no, because animals can’t understand the concept of a contract and can’t knowingly enter into one. But I argued in class that species can have what is almost like a contract. For example, when we domesticated dogs, we traded food and medical care for work. Is this really a contract? Well, I think it is interesting that we only domesticated some species. Some have proved to not be domesticatable. Does that mean that some species (not the individuals, of course) chose to enter into a contract with our species, and other species chose not to? Only in a very abstract sense, of course, but I like the idea. Some theories of how canid domestication happened suggest that dogs made the first move in the relationship, choosing to start living near us for the benefits of our waste food. Did we domesticate them, or did they wriggle their way in first?
Next we had an hour of large animal medicine and surgery lecture about diseases of pigs. The lecture was given by a swine vet who works closely with intensively-raised pigs — pigs in confinement housing, what has been called a factory farm. She was not interested in discussing the ethics of confinement housing; when she put up a slide with an image of a sow gestation crate (in which the sow does not have room to turn around), she stated preemptively that any discussion about gestation crates could take place after lecture. In other words, she did not feel lecture was an appropriate place for that discussion. Phew. I completely understand her fear that lecture could get derailed in a debate on pig confinement, but I would have at least appreciated a few sentences about why she thinks it’s okay — some moral context. As it was, the contrast to the previous lecture was pretty stark.
Then lunch (I practiced the names of surgical instruments) and then one more hour of ethics lecture, and two more hours of pig diseases lecture. What an oddly-scheduled day.
The post-prandial ethics lecture/discussion was really interesting. It was about the question of whether the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) should extend accreditation to a Mexican veterinary school, the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). The AVMA already accredits multiple foreign schools, so this is not at all without precedent. UNAM is by many reports an excellent school. So what’s the problem? Apparently, some veterinarians are afraid that accrediting UNAM will result in an influx of Mexican veterinarians to compete with American veterinarians, willing to work for lower salaries. The argument against that viewpoint is that we already have protections in place, requiring that foreigners be paid the same as American workers.
Should the AVMA just get out of accrediting non-American schools all together? The arguments against that are that global standards are good things; and that high standards abroad help keep us safe at home, because it is foreign veterinarians who stand between American animals and the introduction of animal diseases not yet seen on this continent, like the dreaded foot and mouth disease.
I have a sneaking suspicion that I am missing some arguments on this particular issue, because some of the people arguing against accreditation for UNAM are people I otherwise really respect, so I’ll keep my ears pricked and report back here if I learn more.
We talked about different kinds of ethics: contractarian, utilitarian, relational, rights-based, and respect for nature. The contractarian discussion was the most interesting to me. Do we have relationships with animals based on a contract? The obvious answer is no, because animals can’t understand the concept of a contract and can’t knowingly enter into one. But I argued in class that species can have what is almost like a contract. For example, when we domesticated dogs, we traded food and medical care for work. Is this really a contract? Well, I think it is interesting that we only domesticated some species. Some have proved to not be domesticatable. Does that mean that some species (not the individuals, of course) chose to enter into a contract with our species, and other species chose not to? Only in a very abstract sense, of course, but I like the idea. Some theories of how canid domestication happened suggest that dogs made the first move in the relationship, choosing to start living near us for the benefits of our waste food. Did we domesticate them, or did they wriggle their way in first?
Next we had an hour of large animal medicine and surgery lecture about diseases of pigs. The lecture was given by a swine vet who works closely with intensively-raised pigs — pigs in confinement housing, what has been called a factory farm. She was not interested in discussing the ethics of confinement housing; when she put up a slide with an image of a sow gestation crate (in which the sow does not have room to turn around), she stated preemptively that any discussion about gestation crates could take place after lecture. In other words, she did not feel lecture was an appropriate place for that discussion. Phew. I completely understand her fear that lecture could get derailed in a debate on pig confinement, but I would have at least appreciated a few sentences about why she thinks it’s okay — some moral context. As it was, the contrast to the previous lecture was pretty stark.
Then lunch (I practiced the names of surgical instruments) and then one more hour of ethics lecture, and two more hours of pig diseases lecture. What an oddly-scheduled day.
The post-prandial ethics lecture/discussion was really interesting. It was about the question of whether the AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association) should extend accreditation to a Mexican veterinary school, the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). The AVMA already accredits multiple foreign schools, so this is not at all without precedent. UNAM is by many reports an excellent school. So what’s the problem? Apparently, some veterinarians are afraid that accrediting UNAM will result in an influx of Mexican veterinarians to compete with American veterinarians, willing to work for lower salaries. The argument against that viewpoint is that we already have protections in place, requiring that foreigners be paid the same as American workers.
Should the AVMA just get out of accrediting non-American schools all together? The arguments against that are that global standards are good things; and that high standards abroad help keep us safe at home, because it is foreign veterinarians who stand between American animals and the introduction of animal diseases not yet seen on this continent, like the dreaded foot and mouth disease.
I have a sneaking suspicion that I am missing some arguments on this particular issue, because some of the people arguing against accreditation for UNAM are people I otherwise really respect, so I’ll keep my ears pricked and report back here if I learn more.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Veterinary fact of the day: chemodectomas
This is actually the veterinary fact of yesterday. During small animal medicine and surgery, a surgeon was discussing chemodectomas, tumors arising from chemoreceptors. A chemoreceptor is a cluster of cells which measures chemical changes in the body, such as oxygen level. The surgeon asserted that brachycephalic dogs (flat-faced dogs, like pugs and bulldogs) get chemodectomas more often than other types of dogs, possibly due to “chronic asphyxiation.” In other words, in his opinon (and that of other veterinarians), the fact that flat-faced dogs can’t really get enough air in through their tiny noses can actually result in cancer.
I’m not going to talk about the physiology behind how this would work, because we didn’t cover that in class. I will say that I think it is a failing of the veterinary profession as a whole to not discuss these kinds of issues more with people who are deciding what kind of dog to get. “That breed of dog is more likely to get this form of cancer” is a very different statement from “that breed of dog can’t get enough air into its system, which can cause all kinds of problems, including cancer. We should be encouraging breeders to breed a little more snout into these dogs so they can be healthy.”
What I did yesterday: Two hours of large animal medicine and surgery lecture. Two hours of small animal medicine and surgery lecture. Lunch! (Except I didn’t eat then, because I had a meeting. I ate during:) Two more hours of small animal medicine and surgery lecture. Suture practicing with friends! Gym! Home!
I’m not going to talk about the physiology behind how this would work, because we didn’t cover that in class. I will say that I think it is a failing of the veterinary profession as a whole to not discuss these kinds of issues more with people who are deciding what kind of dog to get. “That breed of dog is more likely to get this form of cancer” is a very different statement from “that breed of dog can’t get enough air into its system, which can cause all kinds of problems, including cancer. We should be encouraging breeders to breed a little more snout into these dogs so they can be healthy.”
What I did yesterday: Two hours of large animal medicine and surgery lecture. Two hours of small animal medicine and surgery lecture. Lunch! (Except I didn’t eat then, because I had a meeting. I ate during:) Two more hours of small animal medicine and surgery lecture. Suture practicing with friends! Gym! Home!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Animal welfare and veterinary ethics
The American College of Animal Welfare has proposed a new animal welfare veterinary speciality. The creation of a new specialty happens when a new veterinary college is created. Admission to a veterinary college normally entails completion of veterinary school (obviously), then a few years in private practice or a one-year internship, then a multi-year residency in the specialty, including clinical practice and research, and finally a difficult board exam. There may be some other requirements for specific specialties. In this case, a proposed additional requirement is that the candidate sign a statement that they agree with the AVMA’s animal welfare principles.
Some veterinarians recently sent a letter to the AVMA protesting this requirement. This story has been reported on both by the Veterinary Information Network News Service (an unbiased report) and by Pet Connection (an opinon piece).
One item in the AVMA’s animal welfare principles that the veterinarians who sent the letter are taking exception to is:
Should veterinarians be required to agree with the AVMA’s animal welfare principles before they are allowed to be certified as animal welfare specialists?
It is worth pointing out that the AVMA already requires all veterinarians to take an oath upon completion of veterinary school. Here it is:
Personally, I actually prefer the phrasing in the animal welfare principles, which only require “the responsible use of animals for human purposes.” What is responsible use? It is presumably different for different people. In the VIN article, Dr. Gary Block (moderator of a veterinary ethics mailing list, past president of the Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics, member of the leadership council of the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, board certified internal medicine specialist) explains his view point:
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Block and his positions on animal welfare, but in this case I think he’s wrong. I think it’s fine to interpret “responsible use” to mean “no use” in some cases. There are some things that cannot be done responsibly; genocide comes to mind. If Dr. Block chooses to believe that primate research cannot be done responsibly due to primates’ high requirements for enrichment, I don’t find that position to be irreconcilable with the AVMA’s animal welfare principles.
My view is that the AVMA has dragged its heels for too long when it comes to its views of animal welfare. The AVMA’s positions on animal welfare seem to me to all too often fail to reflect the views of the majority of American veterinarians. Creation of an animal welfare college would be a big step forward. If we stop to quibble about the details, it may never happen. These principles are broad and can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It’s annoying to have to sign them, no question. But worth jeopardizing the creation of the new specialty? In my opinion, no.
Some veterinarians recently sent a letter to the AVMA protesting this requirement. This story has been reported on both by the Veterinary Information Network News Service (an unbiased report) and by Pet Connection (an opinon piece).
One item in the AVMA’s animal welfare principles that the veterinarians who sent the letter are taking exception to is:
The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, recreation, work, education, exhibition, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, is consistent with the Veterinarian’s Oath.
Should veterinarians be required to agree with the AVMA’s animal welfare principles before they are allowed to be certified as animal welfare specialists?
It is worth pointing out that the AVMA already requires all veterinarians to take an oath upon completion of veterinary school. Here it is:
Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.This oath may seem innocuous, but note that it frames a veterinarian’s primary responsibility as being “for the benefit of society,” not for the benefit of animals. This is very similar to what I see as the primary objection to the animal welfare principles being debated, which emphasize “the responsible use of animals for human purposes.” If you disagree with the latter, should you have sworn to the former? Or is it possible that a number of veterinarians are taking the Veterinarian’s Oath without really meaning it?
I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.
I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence.
Personally, I actually prefer the phrasing in the animal welfare principles, which only require “the responsible use of animals for human purposes.” What is responsible use? It is presumably different for different people. In the VIN article, Dr. Gary Block (moderator of a veterinary ethics mailing list, past president of the Society for Veterinary Medical Ethics, member of the leadership council of the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, board certified internal medicine specialist) explains his view point:
For the most part, everyone would agree with the principles. But let’s say that I come to the conclusion that based on ethical, medical, physiologic and environmental grounds that invasive research on higher primates should never be done. Now I’ve just run afoul of the principles.
I have a lot of respect for Dr. Block and his positions on animal welfare, but in this case I think he’s wrong. I think it’s fine to interpret “responsible use” to mean “no use” in some cases. There are some things that cannot be done responsibly; genocide comes to mind. If Dr. Block chooses to believe that primate research cannot be done responsibly due to primates’ high requirements for enrichment, I don’t find that position to be irreconcilable with the AVMA’s animal welfare principles.
My view is that the AVMA has dragged its heels for too long when it comes to its views of animal welfare. The AVMA’s positions on animal welfare seem to me to all too often fail to reflect the views of the majority of American veterinarians. Creation of an animal welfare college would be a big step forward. If we stop to quibble about the details, it may never happen. These principles are broad and can be interpreted in a variety of ways. It’s annoying to have to sign them, no question. But worth jeopardizing the creation of the new specialty? In my opinion, no.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Purebred dogs and breed standards
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with breeding purebred dogs. We breed dogs for work, for beauty, for good companionship, and breeding different kinds of dogs for different kinds of jobs is a good idea. I do believe, however, that many breed standards dictate physical limitations which are simply unhealthy for dogs.
There are the obvious ones. Dogs bred to have very flat faces (pugs, bulldogs) simply don't have enough muzzle to breathe with. These dogs are more likely to die of respiratory problems — they have, in fact, been known to simply keel over with no warning. There are the less obvious ones, too. Giant breed dogs are highly prone to gastric dilatation and volvulus (GDV), a frequently lethal condition in which the stomach twists and expands. (Great Danes are so prone to GDV that their owners sometimes opt to have a gastropexy, in which the stomach is stapled down so that it can’t twist, performed prophylactically.) There’s some debate about why Danes are particularly prone to GDV: the depth of their chests? Something about their metabolism due to their large size? But we are sure that large, deep chested dogs are more prone to the problem, and we strongly suspect a causal link.
Personally, I see a difference between issues of this kind, which are tied to the breed standard, and more coincidental problems. My chosen breed, the golden retriever, is prone to cancer. This doesn’t have anything particularly to do with what makes them goldens. It is presumably just some bad genetics that got locked in as part of creating a highly homogeneous population of animals. The trait isn’t tied to what we think of as breed characteristics; theoretically, we could someday breed this cancer-factory trait out of goldens without changing the way they look or act. Flat-faced dogs, on the other hand, are going to have breathing problems until we breed them to be a little less flat-faced.
I hear people lumping the two problems together, though. When a responsible owner is choosing a breed of dog to live with, one of the appropriate things to do to is to read up on potential health problems. then decide if you can live with those problems. It surprises me to see people lumping “respiratory problems with pugs” in with “heart disease in King Charles Cavalier Spaniels.” We choose to breed respiratory problems into the pug. We know exactly what to do to breed it back out. People who choose to purchase dogs with these sorts of preventable physical defects are supporting the problem.
That sounds harsh, so let me add that I recognize that people don’t see it that way. People buy pugs because they are nice dogs, and low-energy dogs, and have cute baby faces. They don’t think of these physical problems as things that are easy to breed out. They think of them as just another problem associated with a particular breed. That’s where I feel veterinarians could do more to educate the public. Veterinarians as a group seem to be cautious about giving value judgements to people. They don’t want to drive their business away (and who can blame them?). But if veterinarians are truly acting as the advocates of animals who cannot advocate for themselves, I believe they should do more to teach people that not all breed problems are hard to solve. Some just require us to value the health of the animal more than what it looks like.
I do sympathize with the love of a particular breed. I love giant breed dogs. Whenever I interact with one in the hospital, I go all gooey. Recently I enrolled a Great Dane in my study, and that was a good night for me, getting to handle a dog larger than some ponies. But I will never buy a giant breed puppy. As much as I love them, I believe we need to reevaluate whether it is ethical to breed dogs that large. I know other dog lovers might make similar decisions, if they better understood the implications of the standards of their preferred breeds.
So what do I think should change?
There are the obvious ones. Dogs bred to have very flat faces (pugs, bulldogs) simply don't have enough muzzle to breathe with. These dogs are more likely to die of respiratory problems — they have, in fact, been known to simply keel over with no warning. There are the less obvious ones, too. Giant breed dogs are highly prone to gastric dilatation and volvulus (GDV), a frequently lethal condition in which the stomach twists and expands. (Great Danes are so prone to GDV that their owners sometimes opt to have a gastropexy, in which the stomach is stapled down so that it can’t twist, performed prophylactically.) There’s some debate about why Danes are particularly prone to GDV: the depth of their chests? Something about their metabolism due to their large size? But we are sure that large, deep chested dogs are more prone to the problem, and we strongly suspect a causal link.
Personally, I see a difference between issues of this kind, which are tied to the breed standard, and more coincidental problems. My chosen breed, the golden retriever, is prone to cancer. This doesn’t have anything particularly to do with what makes them goldens. It is presumably just some bad genetics that got locked in as part of creating a highly homogeneous population of animals. The trait isn’t tied to what we think of as breed characteristics; theoretically, we could someday breed this cancer-factory trait out of goldens without changing the way they look or act. Flat-faced dogs, on the other hand, are going to have breathing problems until we breed them to be a little less flat-faced.
I hear people lumping the two problems together, though. When a responsible owner is choosing a breed of dog to live with, one of the appropriate things to do to is to read up on potential health problems. then decide if you can live with those problems. It surprises me to see people lumping “respiratory problems with pugs” in with “heart disease in King Charles Cavalier Spaniels.” We choose to breed respiratory problems into the pug. We know exactly what to do to breed it back out. People who choose to purchase dogs with these sorts of preventable physical defects are supporting the problem.
That sounds harsh, so let me add that I recognize that people don’t see it that way. People buy pugs because they are nice dogs, and low-energy dogs, and have cute baby faces. They don’t think of these physical problems as things that are easy to breed out. They think of them as just another problem associated with a particular breed. That’s where I feel veterinarians could do more to educate the public. Veterinarians as a group seem to be cautious about giving value judgements to people. They don’t want to drive their business away (and who can blame them?). But if veterinarians are truly acting as the advocates of animals who cannot advocate for themselves, I believe they should do more to teach people that not all breed problems are hard to solve. Some just require us to value the health of the animal more than what it looks like.
I do sympathize with the love of a particular breed. I love giant breed dogs. Whenever I interact with one in the hospital, I go all gooey. Recently I enrolled a Great Dane in my study, and that was a good night for me, getting to handle a dog larger than some ponies. But I will never buy a giant breed puppy. As much as I love them, I believe we need to reevaluate whether it is ethical to breed dogs that large. I know other dog lovers might make similar decisions, if they better understood the implications of the standards of their preferred breeds.
So what do I think should change?
- Dog owners should avoid purchasing purebred puppies from breeds which have breed standards dictating significant physical problems.
- Dog breeders should select dogs for health, and choose not to breed to standards which are inherently unhealthy.
- Breed clubs should advocate for changes in breed standards, such that standards no longer describe inherently unhealthy physical limitations.
- Veterinarians should offer more judgements to their clients about the kinds of physical limitations it is morally acceptable to support. Perhaps the AVMA could work with breed clubs to help them identify breed standards which would benefit from change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
